On 05/01/2014 07:56 AM, Michael Gutteridge wrote:
Not sure- I'm afraid that an "any" that was only good at one point in
time might be a little more confusing than useful as more accounts are
added.
I agree.
What about bypassing the association check if a user is associated
with a special group?
That could cause a bunch of other issues, like limits and such and no
account for usage by the user.
It could be done to have the slurmctld add the association if it didn't
exist for the special user, but that doesn't exist today. I think that
would probably be the best case scenario though.
What do you think?
Danny
Thanks
M
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Danny Auble <[email protected]> wrote:
Sorry Michael, nothing like that exists today.
I don't think this would be something easy to implement either. Each account
would need a new association so if you added a new account there would need
to be logic to pull this user into that account as well. There just isn't
anything like that there today.
An easy, solution could be to have a special account name like your "any"
there and it would fill in all the accounts like you would want, but it
would only handle already existing accounts. If this seems like a good idea
I could put it on the wish list.
Danny
On 04/30/2014 09:22 AM, Michael Gutteridge wrote:
I'm setting up account associations (Slurm 2.6.2). I have a number of
users who are principally "service providers" for other groups and
thus are allowed to run jobs in any account.
I know I can do this:
sacctmgr add user alice accounts=this,that,other,...
With all the accounts listed, but as I've got a few hundred accounts
this command might get a little ugly. I'd prefer something like:
sacctmgr add user alice accounts=any ...
Is there anything like that?
Thanks much
Michael
